FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - President proposes increasing taxes on air tickets to pay for security
Old Jan 30, 05, 4:04 pm
  #89  
Dangling_Participle
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Programs: AA, NWA
Posts: 6
Talking Trained monkeys and the people who love them... Live, on the next Geraldo.

Introducing Dovster, who never wastes an opportunity to open his mouth and confirm his ignorance, when merely by staying silent others would only have suspected it!

As you have decided to be so childish as to attack Mikesilv's typing/spelling errors
Actually, he started it with his post confusing the words "indiction" (which, incidentally, is a word) and "interdiction". Or, did you miss that? I'm guessing you conveniently overlooked it in your haste to broadcast your own ignorance.

The fact is, Mike is staking his credibility in this discussion upon his own personal brilliance. Thus, his failure to grasp even the simplest concepts of English grammar, spelling and usage should clearly reflect upon the weight to be assigned to his words. Why? Because this is a text-based environment. My assumption (be it right, wrong or indifferent) is that Mike's statements are somewhat as important as the senseless babbling of an infant, largely because he has about the same competency level in his English mechanics as an infant. Perhaps he just has some deficiency in the area of attention to detail, or maybe he sincerely IS a moron. I don't know. What I -do- know is that in a text-based forum, if you present your "wisdom" in a hodgepodge of typographical, spelling, grammar and punctuation errors, it's really your own fault if others incorrectly are led by your sloppiness to believe that you're an idiot.

Ohright. This should be two words, separated by a comma
Not at all, I'm using this as a nonsense interjection, indicating my utter disbelief that anyone could be as ignorant as to post what was posted.

Do you truly consider this to be a complete sentence?
It doesn't need to be a complete sentence - it's solely the answer to the question immediately previous. The context is clear, and wholly grammatically acceptable.

"Ergo", being a word from a foreign language, should be placed in italics.
Perhaps you've been spending far too much time in Mike The Trained Monkey Land. You should have consulted a dictionary before you made this statement. The etymology of the word "ergo" is clearly from the Latin; however, it has been adopted into the English language along with countless other words of foreign origin, and now claims its place within the bounds of the English language.

According to Webster's:
Main Entry: er·go
Pronunciation: 'er-(")gO, '&r-
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, from Old Latin, because of, from (assumed) Old Latin e rogo from the direction (of)
: THEREFORE, HENCE
I realize I used some multisyllabic words in my explanation so, by all means, please do let me know if I need to break it down for you into short words with concrete examples. In simplest terms, italics are unneeded for words which, despite their foreign origins, have been adopted into standard English.

"Being" is incorrect; you should have used "is"
I bet your English teacher spent a small fortune on red pens when she corrected your papers, didn't she? The complete sentence is:
Ergo, the United States Coast Guard being the primary agency charged with maritime immigration interdiction duties.
The simple subject of the sentence is "United States Coast Guard". The simple predicate is the verb "charged". In order to be a complete sentence, all that is required is a subject and a predicate. This sentence has both and, despite your own ignorant bleating, is a complete sentence.

Honestly. You'd think if someone were going to give a lecture about something, he or she would at least attempt to educate him or herself about the subject at hand BEFORE he/she started typing. But, then again, thanks to Dovster, Mike and the internet, we now have absolute proof of the Infinite Monkey theorem!
Dangling_Participle is offline